Re: [ncc-charter] charter amendment - non-voting members?

From: Milton Mueller (
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 09:05:25 PDT

  • Next message: "[ncc-charter] Re: Revised Charter proposal"

    At 08:45 PM 9/1/2000 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:

    >I don't understand what you're saying here.
    >We've always had a class of non-voting members, they have always had
    >certain rights (though not very well defined rights) within the
    >constituency. You think they should be ineligible for membership, period?

    If this class is carefully restricted to the two cases you mention below --
    organizations that would otherwise be eligible except for the membership of
    a parent organization and organizations that are voting members of other
    DNSO constituencies -- then it's ok to call them "non-voting members" and
    it's ok to let them propose and discuss resolutions in f2f meetings and the
    list. I am willing to give on this. But they still shouldn't vote.

    >OK, not participate in Adcom teleconference calls.
    >So will you accept: non-voting members may propose and vote on resolutions
    >and discuss and propose amendments to resolutions during face to face
    >meetings and on the mailing list?

    See above. Yes to discussing and proposing, no to voting.

    >Note. We created this non-voting class of members for organizations that
    >are voting members of other constituencies (usually CC-TLD operators) and
    >subgroups of organizations that are already members of the constituency
    >(ISOC chapters.) They are organizations that would qualify for membership
    >if it weren't for these conflicts.

    The point of these membership restrictions was to protect the integrity of
    the NCC. I am concerend about actual membership being swamped with casual
    and stacked participants from other constituencies. Note that the vast
    majority of NCC organizations are completely ineligible to vote or even
    participate in the affairs of other constituencies.

    >I agree that they should be non-voting in the election of our Adcom
    >representatives, but for the work of the constituency I think this class of
    >members should be able to participate as fully as possible (Milton, I am
    >willing to give on them not participating in teleconference calls.)
    >As I mentioned yesterday, our decision may have implications for
    >organizations applying for the travel grant and for the grant itself
    >(applicants must be "a member of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
    >Constituency" <>.) And we
    >should be careful not to fall foul of Section 3a of ICANN bylaws,

    ISOC chapters, for example, can claim that ISOC is a member of the NCC and
    as such the individual applicant would be considered a member of NCC. Same
    goes for University departments, etc. Most TLD registries don't need
    financial support to attend ICANN meetings.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 09:05:37 PDT